Existing Users

Previous Action

Campaign Not in Vain was written to raise awareness about the dangers of silicone supported by a personal story of serious illness resulting in 14 hospital operations. Reference is also made to 50 websites whose content supports the need for wider dissemination of the dangers of Silicone Implants.

A leaflet ‘THE COLD HARD FACTS OF SILICONE’ is ready to be circulated to unsuspecting women who want augmentation but are unaware of the dangers.

Catherine Stilher MEP tabled 3 questions:

1. Can the Commission explain why, despite evidence that Silicone implants do rupture and cause serious health implications, their use is still allowed in Europe and Britain?

2. What action is the Commission taking to ensure that people opting for breast enlargement including the timeline for replacement of implants, are given information about the hazards of silicone implants?

3. What plans have the Commission developed to inform women, who already have silicone implants, of the dangers of New Silicone Disease?

Nicola Sturgeon’s first letter (via MP Danny Alexander) revealed she was glad the rupture issue had been brought to her attention. However, she stressed the Independent Review Group report found no scientific evidence between silicone gel implants and immune reactions.

Mr Verheugen (14/09/2009), on behalf of the European Commission, stated there are no scientific grounds to ban Silicone Breast Implants. The matter was transferred to local MSP, Rhoda Grant, who sent the Campaign to the Scottish Government.

Nicola Sturgeon’s response (22/10/2009 via Rhoda Grant) stated that the Campaign material had been sent to the Health Facilities Scotland’s Incident Reporting and Investigation Centre. She repeated her statement that there was no scientific relationship between silicone gel and immune reactions.

Danny Alexander’s letter (2/09/2010) confirmed my correspondence regarding concerns over the silicone implants has been sent from the Minister to the Health Facilities Scotland Reporting and Investigation Centre.

Shona Robinson’s letter (29/10/2007 via Danny Alexander) recommended seeing a lawyer who specialises in medical negligence, stating concerns should be raised with local NHS Board and that courts have the discretion to extend this period; in some cases the time-bar can be extended to claim for injury in cases where:

•the injuries are sufficiently serious to justify bringing an action •the injuries were attributable in whole or part to an act or omission •the defender was a person whose act or omission were attributable in whole or part

R Carey, Chief Executive NHS Grampian (in his letter 31/07/) stated that, “from where augmentation took place in 1985, complaints must be made within 6 months of the operation”. He recommended me to seek advice from Citizens Advice Bureau.

This website is using cookies. We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we’ll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on this website.